Egypt And Wazungu

[kapkitwol]

• Tweet

Just watchig Discovery chanel and all this Ivy league alumni are trying to explain how Egypt was a white man world. They could come to my village and ask anyone what ; Asis, Nile, Tutkanhamun means

[Omollo]

They can also go to mine and hear the story of Moses - The Luo Boy.

Just watchig Discovery chanel and all this Ivy league alumni are trying to explain how Egypt was a white man world. They could come to my village and ask anyone what ; Asis, Nile, Tutkanhamun means

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Ancient Egypt was bazungu if you broadly define them as non-Subsaharan.  The Mummies also do  not favor a Negro hypothesis.

The subsaharan Nilote.  His ancestor would have picked up concepts, words, ideas in interactions with Egyptians or their neighbors of Nubian vault fame.  Most likely on slave raids.

If I am aware civilizations come and go.  I am still fascinated by how Afrocentrists allege those folks built the pyramids only to somehow end up without clothes in South Sudan. 

If you grant the benefit of the doubt, you also want to explain the apparent loss of the written word until the arrival of the white explorers and missionaries.

[veritas]

I'm studying nazscan culture at the moment.



They obviously had some powerful shamans who under the influence carved those religious symbols to warn the future people like us the curses they suffered under an evil entity. An evil entity that spread beheadings, third eye mutilations and mass killings. I can't help but notice history repeating itself under the same auspices with nazis etc to now on the brink of genocide with biological agents. I can't help but learn from the nazcan shamans on carving a protective ritual to the gods. I haven't figured out what yet. Whatever it is I think it needs to be imprinted on the network. Something everlasting. As a teen I used to perform exorcisms online. Yes evil can manifest over the net.



This religious token is consistent with shamanistic totem creatures cross culture.

[RV Pundit]

That indeed is true.Apart from Nubians (and related folks); the ancient Egypt exclude Sudan as it were. You can say the boundary was present day Khartoum and all the way up. Below that was a unknown world.

The Nile was not navigable beyond some huge mountains and so all the ancient egyptian civilisation has little to do with Africa..and more to do with Middle East and the Mediterranean. Can you call that white. Hardly. The same way you cannot call small enclave in Egypt Africa...even if Nubian represents the black people of Egypt.

Native Egypitan were neither white or black..they were people living there...possibly mix race of nubians, berbers,arabs, jews...basically not any different from now...or from their neighbours in Libya or Sudan or Eriteria or Isreal or Arabia.

Sub-sahara Africa has nothing to do with Egyptian empire of the yore.

The rest are fantasies...of course some words like ASIS or whatever are similar..because Egypitan language has common words (cognate) with related Africa and Asia languages.

Sub-sahara people are not inferior in any way; What blocked Africa was just the wild remote region that made exchange of ideas,technology, trade and etc near impossible. Nile downwards from Aswan High dam was not navigable. The few who attempted died and it was basically declare end of the world. It took many years before the source of Nile was discovered but many of that time had various laughable theories. Btw supra and sub sahara laid the tse tse fly belt that made any movement downards a suicide. Etc

Around 8-10th century is when first civilisation came to Africa...along the Eastern Africa coast...spread by Omani and related arabs. The interior would remain unpenetrable  and uninteresting except for gold in certain places.until I think 17th century when Arabs started looking for slaves...as demand for slaves in new lands of America arose.

Ancient Egypt was bazungu if you broadly define them as non-Subsaharan.  The Mummies also do  not favor a Negro hypothesis.

The subsaharan Nilote.  His ancestor would have picked up concepts, words, ideas in interactions with Egyptians or their neighbors of Nubian vault fame.  Most likely on slave raids.

If I am aware civilizations come and go.  I am still fascinated by how Afrocentrists allege those folks built the pyramids only to somehow end up without clothes in South Sudan. 

If you grant the benefit of the doubt, you also want to explain the apparent loss of the written word until the arrival of the white explorers and missionaries.

[kapkitwol]

King Tut DNA showed he was 100% negro. That is 1700Bc. I cant debate coz i don't have any refrence. But after all the slavery and more; am very sceptical of Bazungu. They even cant take down the racist flag in SC . But Asis, Tumdo, Kiptayat? can not be just words.

[RV Pundit]

Egyptian were not whites. If your mean people of European descent. They were the current egyptian now living there except for a major influx of Arabs about 2,000 years. The original were berbers, nubians, and generally the same folks you'd find around that region now.

King Tut DNA showed he was 100% negro. That is 1700Bc. I cant debate coz i don't have any refrence. But after all the slavery and more; am very sceptical of Bazungu. They even cant take down the racist flag in SC . But Asis, Tumdo, Kiptayat? can not be just words.

[veritas]

You can't trace ancestory with DNA alone. DNA is subject to observation. As part of my molecular bio course I had to sequence my DNA and place markers. DNA sequencing gets as good as the geneticist conducting the research. It's up to you to find whatever it is you're looking for. Race isn't something that can be determined by DNA. Race is a social marker and not a physical attribute.

On that note, they think King T's ancestory based on DNA was from Europe and not Africa.

http://io9.com/why-king-tuts-dna-is-fueling-race-wars-1539130793

[Real P]

On that note, they think King T's ancestory based on DNA was from Europe and not Africa.

http://io9.com/why-king-tuts-dna-is-fueling-race-wars-1539130793

I doubt you have evidence that ancestry based on DNA was from Europe and not Africa.

http://tucson.com/news/science/article_f230436f-b11a-5095-84a6-ed584a8a450e.html

DNA shows King Tut born of incest, had cleft palate and club foot.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

King Tut DNA showed he was 100% negro. That is 1700Bc. I cant debate coz i don't have any refrence. But after all the slavery and more; am very sceptical of Bazungu. They even cant take down the racist flag in SC . But Asis, Tumdo, Kiptayat? can not be just words.

The Afrocentrist has one problem.  He has internalized the racist narrative.  He believes his true history is disgraceful.  So he invents one.

Asis, tumdo etc.  Those words do not make one a descendant of ancient Egyptians any more than the Allah expression in Swahili makes Kenyans descendants of Arabs.

[MOON Ki]

The Afrocentrist has one problem.  He has internalized the racist narrative.  He believes his true history is disgraceful.  So he invents one.

The general approach does lack some thinking-through.   For example, there is the obvious question: "If your ancestors were so great and for so long, how did you end up in this deplorable state?  And how does that reflect on you?"

The racist narrative cannot be done away with by a simple appeal to some long-lost glory.    Such glory may be noted, and some level of pride is not entirely out of place.   But life has to be lived here and now, and only real answer is to do better in the here-and-now.   

[RV Pundit]

I hope you're not rubbishing the critical role that history plays in our lives. I am for accurate history. Certainly history plays such a critical role in the lives now and tomorrow it taught widely around the world.

The general approach does lack some thinking-through.   For example, there is the obvious question: "If your ancestors were so great and for so long, how did you end up in this deplorable state?  And how does that reflect on you?"

The racist narrative cannot be done away with by a simple appeal to some long-lost glory.    Such glory may be noted, and some level of pride is not entirely out of place.   But life has to be lived here and now, and only real answer is to do better in the here-and-now.   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The Afrocentrist has one problem.  He has internalized the racist narrative.  He believes his true history is disgraceful.  So he invents one.

The general approach does lack some thinking-through.   For example, there is the obvious question: "If your ancestors were so great and for so long, how did you end up in this deplorable state?  And how does that reflect on you?"

The racist narrative cannot be done away with by a simple appeal to some long-lost glory.    Such glory may be noted, and some level of pride is not entirely out of place.   But life has to be lived here and now, and only real answer is to do better in the here-and-now.   

MOON Ki,

Interestingly, the typical Afrocentrist will probably agree with you.  He is not an apologist for contemporary African behavior.  He will call out the bad leadership and choices Africans make as much as anyone.  He loathes them for pissing on his meticulously reconstructed history.

[MOON Ki]

I hope you're not rubbishing the critical role that history plays in our lives. I am for accurate history. Certainly history plays such a critical role in the lives now and tomorrow it taught widely around the world.

Far from it.   History is indeed important.   But only if one can learn from it. (I am here thinking of, for example, a place like S. Sudan, where  folks are determined to go through the same mayhem that many other African countries have gone through.)

It just happens that I see little value in dwelling excessively on past glory, real or imagined.   Life has to be lived in the present.   (And I should add that my view is not limited to just Africa: one can think of today's Greece in similar terms.)   King Tut was 100% black.   And so?

So I don't get worked up if, say, "Discovery channel and all this Ivy league alumni" want to claim Egypt for the wazungu; to my mind, Africa has more pressing issues to deal with.    To the extent that Africans are bothered by the former, they too have TV channels and Ivy League alumni that they could use to portray the "more accurate" facts.   

[vooke]

A good number of Negro 'scholars' use history to make excuses for their mediocrity. History is a propaganda tool. If it is all about getting facts right, I most certainly welcome it, but if it is all about blaming bazungu for everything wrong, I marvel at apes fudging with history

[RV Pundit]

Perhaps if you really studied and understood history; you'll be more patient and appreciate that what you desire (modernity, civilisation, advancement, progress ) has historically taken many years; nope centuries; You'll be more optimistic about the fortunes of the negro; You'll understand historical setbacks like those sudan are nothing knew. And that in a nutshell is history. One day Egypt is up...the next day it a hell hole like now. The same with Greece. Same with Italy. Same with Spain. Same with Portugal. Same with Britain. And same with US.

It gives us the CONTEXT. More often than not: I find vooke, Windy city and you hard on Mwafrika because you're comparing the progress that some people have made for many years(centuries); with what Mwafrika has achieved in few years. Unfair comparison. Thanks to missing historical context.

In the end your outlook becomes negative, cynical, inhumane and unrealistic. You end up frustrated and give up on Mwafrika. While on reality Mwafrika is possibly making  historically UNPRECEDENTED advancement.

I mean China, India and name them have all been linked with modern advanced world for centuries. Mwafrika was in landlocked fortress of primitivity (an historical geographical accident) and here now after 100yrs; Mwafrika is nearly matching them. Unlike say India or China or some old civilization stuck up (like Maasai of Kenya), Mwafrika  has nothing,is open minded and is embracing ideas left right and center...and moving so fast up....I bet Mwafrika will ran the world in few centuries.

You'll also realize there is nothing unique in struggle that Africa faces now that others didn't make..be it corruption, poverty, insecurity, strife, lawleness, illiteracy...that to surmont some of those challenges will take many generations...and that progress however little is to be celebrated...coz when extrapolated into many years....it becomes something..new society, new culture, etc just doesn't erupt.

I'd recommend your read more and more history. Correct history of course.

History is very important and for that reason I personally spend  a lot of time studying history. It gives you the context.

Far from it.   History is indeed important.   But only if one can learn from it. (I am here thinking of, for example, a place like S. Sudan, where  folks are determined to go through the same mayhem that many other African countries have gone through.)

It just happens that I see little value in dwelling excessively on past glory, real or imagined.   Life has to be lived in the present.   (And I should add that my view is not limited to just Africa: one can think of today's Greece in similar terms.)   King Tut was 100% black.   And so?

So I don't get worked up if, say, "Discovery channel and all this Ivy league alumni" want to claim Egypt for the wazungu; to my mind, Africa has more pressing issues to deal with.    To the extent that Africans are bothered by the former, they too have TV channels and Ivy League alumni that they could use to portray the "more accurate" facts.   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Pundit,

I agree that history has a lot to do with Africa's condition.  But I cannot use it to excuse the weekly corruption scandals plaguing Kenya for instance.  That one vooke will tell you it's the genes.  I will just call it a bad culture.

There is a thread on this forum about Cambodia.  Because it's a country whose recent history mirrors just about any that you can pick from Africa.  A country that did not suffer the relative isolation in its ancient history that sub-Saharan Africa did.

What I am saying is that most current problems have more immediate and ready explanations than ancient history.

[MOON Ki]

Perhaps if you really studied and understood history; you'll be more patient and appreciate that what you desire (modernity, civilisation, advancement, progress ) has historically taken many years; nope centuries; You'll be more optimistic about the fortunes of the negro; You'll understand historical setbacks like those sudan are nothing knew.

When Kiir took the action he took in South Sudan, I knew exactly what the consequences would be.   How did I know that? Simply by looking at 20th century African history and especially of newly independent African countries.   I see no reason why I should cut him some slack, supposedly on the basis of centuries of whatever elsewhere---nothing that makes him fundamentally incapable of learning from that history.

And while Kiir and Machar are busy finishing their people---using weapons that are the products of centuries of development elsewhere, their kids are enjoying the best of modern Nairobi, which too enjoys the products of centuries of development elsewhere.   That fact and also the fact that we are here communicating through a system which is the product of centuries of development shows that we need not wait for centuries to enjoy the fruits of centuries of work.

And what applies to technology etc. similarly applies to legal systems, systems of civil administration, etc.   In Kenya we borrowed from Britain.    We did not have to go through the same amount of time that they did.    The difference is in how we use those systems.

In a nutshell: "modernity, civilisation, advancement, progress" do not occur at some fixed linear rate.   It is therefore lame to use "time" as an excuse.

One can say that a country like Greek was up and now it is down.   Nevertheless, it is not down to the level it was at before it was up.

corruption, poverty, insecurity, strife, lawleness, illiteracy...that to surmont some of those challenges will take many generations...

Why should it take many generations?   The fact that it took many generations elsewhere is not an answer.    Today Africans study law, medicine, engineering, political science, civil administration .... that are the results of centuries of work elsewhere; they do not have to start from scratch.   Why cannot all that be applied right now?  What exactly is it about , say corruption, that means it cannot be dealt with in Kenya right now? 

A guy steals money from the public coffers.  Money that could be used to in education, healthcare, security for the general public.   He uses it to build a hotel that is similar to the best in the West.   He builds himself a house that is like the best in the West, and he fills it with the best from the West.   He enjoys a lifestyle that is enjoyed by few in the "advanced countries" with their "centuries of development" while the masses he has stolen from languish in a deplorable state.   But we are to accept that his corruption and the illiteracy, poor health and the insecurity of the masses will just have to take generations to deal with?   I see no reason why they can't be dealt with right now, nor why the "time" argument should apply to nastiness but not to "the good life".

[RV Pundit]

After asking all questions to what seem straightforward issues, you'll still come unstuck; and that is where history into play. When science,logic and common sense has failed, we resort to history; history will tell us what others did, the setback they had, how long it took and generally what we should expect.

History is for instance telling me not to expect instant coffee like development in kenya; to be expect a slow gradual evolution of the kenyan negro. It hard reality. You can cry about it, you can give up and pack and go, but that is just the reality. Sub-sahara africa will not emerge out of this soon..

Perhaps if you really studied and understood history; you'll be more patient and appreciate that what you desire (modernity, civilisation, advancement, progress ) has historically taken many years; nope centuries; You'll be more optimistic about the fortunes of the negro; You'll understand historical setbacks like those sudan are nothing knew.

When Kiir took the action he took in South Sudan, I knew exactly what the consequences would be.   How did I know that? Simply by looking at 20th century African history and especially of newly independent African countries.   I see no reason why I should cut him some slack, supposedly on the basis of centuries of whatever elsewhere---nothing that makes him fundamentally incapable of learning from that history.

And while Kiir and Machar are busy finishing their people---using weapons that are the products of centuries of development elsewhere, their kids are enjoying the best of modern Nairobi, which too enjoys the products of centuries of development elsewhere.   That fact and also the fact that we are here communicating through a system which is the product of centuries of development shows that we need not wait for centuries to enjoy the fruits of centuries of work.

And what applies to technology etc. similarly applies to legal systems, systems of civil administration, etc.   In Kenya we borrowed from Britain.    We did not have to go through the same amount of time that they did.    The difference is in how we use those systems.

In a nutshell: "modernity, civilisation, advancement, progress" do not occur at some fixed linear rate.   It is therefore lame to use "time" as an excuse.

One can say that a country like Greek was up and now it is down.   Nevertheless, it is not down to the level it was at before it was up.

corruption, poverty, insecurity, strife, lawleness, illiteracy...that to surmont some of those challenges will take many generations...

Why should it take many generations?   The fact that it took many generations elsewhere is not an answer.    Today Africans study law, medicine, engineering, political science, civil administration .... that are the results of centuries of work elsewhere; they do not have to start from scratch.   Why cannot all that be applied right now?  What exactly is it about , say corruption, that means it cannot be dealt with in Kenya right now? 

A guy steals money from the public coffers.  Money that could be used to in education, healthcare, security for the general public.   He uses it to build a hotel that is similar to the best in the West.   He builds himself a house that is like the best in the West, and he fills it with the best from the West.   He enjoys a lifestyle that is enjoyed by few in the "advanced countries" with their "centuries of development" while the masses he has stolen from languish in a deplorable state.   But we are to accept that his corruption and the illiteracy, poor health and the insecurity of the masses will just have to take generations to deal with?   I see no reason why they can't be dealt with right now, nor why the "time" argument should apply to nastiness but not to "the good life".

[RV Pundit]

How long do you think it takes to change culture. For a real sustainable culture change, I say it takes long time. And that is what history tell us.

What does history tell us about corruption. You may not like it but history of corruption (including in Chicago and Britain) tells us it solves itself as long as the economy is growing. So it must be frustrating to watch endemic corruption ravage the country but unlike you, my history lessons, tell me to check the gdp growth, and if people are become more wealthier (could be an extra chicken this year) in spite of
corruption, there is hope that in 100yrs (history say so..not 5yrs)...corruption will no longer exist.

There are of course stuff that can do with immediate actions...easy quick wins...but some of the more serious ones like tribalism, corruption,poverty, inequality and insecurity cannot be solved easily.

Sorry but I draw blank in anything Cambodia. I only remember it for heroic US movies for some war there with Veitnam. In fact Cambodia in our place referred to pit latrines...given the US evil shelling that was going there.

Pundit,

I agree that history has a lot to do with Africa's condition.  But I cannot use it to excuse the weekly corruption scandals plaguing Kenya for instance.  That one vooke will tell you it's the genes.  I will just call it a bad culture.

There is a thread on this forum about Cambodia.  Because it's a country whose recent history mirrors just about any that you can pick from Africa.  A country that did not suffer the relative isolation in its ancient history that sub-Saharan Africa did.

What I am saying is that most current problems have more immediate and ready explanations than ancient history.